Civil Unions Between Mother / Daughter

The Times of London quotes a woman who is asking – why can’t I get a civil union with my daughter so that I could give her the financial benefits that I want to give her? Albert Mohler discusses it in his Nov 28 podcast (scan up to minute 11). The woman asks some good questions:

I’m pro civil partnerships for gays — but why can’t I sign up to one with my daughter?… If I were gay, I could pop into a lesbian dive, pick up a cute little chickie, install her in my home and then, giddy with optimism and desire, trot her off to the register office a month later and make her my civil partner. Romance aside, by doing so I would be protecting the person I love most from the potential for financial disarray that, quite sensibly, is a frequently given reason for wanting to do it at all.

Mohler argues that you can’t logically stop with same sex romantic (i.e. gay) couples. If not allowing gays to marry is discriminatory, then not allowing anyone who cares for someone else (daughter, sister, niece, nephew) is also discriminatory. That pretty much unravels marriage altogether. Also, it means you are discriminating against polygamists and polyamorists. If you don’t draw the line at the union of a man and woman, then how do you draw the line? What is marriage worth, then? Is the family unit with mother and father really unnecessary?

27 Responses

As usual Seeker, you seem to confuse the consensual love between a woman and a woman with a clever, but TOTALLY DIFFERENT, attempt by a mother to get benefits for her daughter. (Which benefits doesn't a mother have, in this case?) Honestly, your desperate attempts to oppose gay marriage are sad.

No, I think the writer makes a very valid point – one of the main reasons pro gay-marriage people use for the need for governmental recognition of gay marriage is for the purpose of legal benefits. This woman argues that if her daughter or unmarried sister is the person she loves most and wants to give her estate to – the person who is her family that she loves, why should she not also be given these same rights? She also makes a good argument that sexual relations is not the measure of love, and like gays, she can not procreate with her loved ones, and loves them deeply. So why should they not be given a civil union? What's so special about a man and a woman, and traditional marriage? Her point is well taken – that if gays would oppose this, then aren't they being descriminatory? What makes them think they can draw the line around themselves, but exclude these other valid forms of love? And if gays don't oppose this, it shows that legalizing gay marriage will most certainly make legal marriage between a man and a woman of almost no value, because it will be valued the same as every other type of relationship, even immoral ones. The biological and sociological fact is that faithful, loving marriage between a man and woman is critical for the emotional health of children and society. And the logic behind gay marriage, which dilutes and devalues marriage by opening the door to overvaluing and legitimizing every other kind of relationship, is based on false premises, which include – the morality of homosexuality – the purely or predominantly biological roots of homosexuality – the devaluing of the importance of heterosexual unions in society and childrearing – equating homosexuality with legitimate human rights based purely on biology (sex, race, age) The woman seeking civil union w/ her daughter is not being clever of deceitful, as you may hope. Rather, she is being intellectually honest and logically consistent with the arguments for legitimizing hx marriage. I guess that's the whole point.

Once again Seeker, you win the day. Which is why you'll obviously be supporting marriage for a mother and her SON because they can procreate. Because procreation is now the reason for marriage, not love (or sex, as you reduce gay relationships too). Speaking of which, how much fun will you have telling the elderly – who can't procreate – or the impotent – who similarly can't procreate – that their marriages are now no longer valid?

So answer me this – how can you allow homosexuals to marry, but forbid other types of unions? On what grounds? BTW, I didn't say that procreation was the only reason for maintaining marriage between man and woman. That's part of it, but also, it has to do with normal childhood development and having stable, healthy families to build our society upon. And just because a mother and son can procreate does NOT invalidate the procreation end of my argument – you are being reductionist and oversimplistic. The reason we disallow incest is for medical reasons, correct? That's why. I'm sure there are psychological reasons why also. But stick to the subject. By what reasoning would you allow gays to marry but not other adult unions? I'll be surprised if you can do it.

So answer me this – how can you allow homosexuals to marry, but forbid other types of unions? Simple. You pass a law doing as much. The 'why' – marriage should be for two people that love each other in a sexual way. Why stop there? Re: kids, it's easy (consent issues); re: polygamy: contractual efficiency (in the event of dissolution, two is the simplest unit; the stability of marriage rights emerges from its bilateral, reciprocal structure; there are also feminist objections to the patriarchal organization of polygamy). Re: sibs: who cares? Let 'em have at it. We let people w/ all kinds of genetic diseases marry, so why not sibs?

Seeker, It isn't simplistic or reductionist to claim that by allowing gay marriage, we'll be forced to allow for parents to marry their children. (Before I go on, I'd like to point out that parents of FOSTER CHILDREN can marry those children. Gross, but true. See: Woody Allen. Obviously, this slightly reality hasn't damaged marriage in any way. The possibility that gays MIGHT marry has.) It is reductionist for me to point out the flaws in your suggested law of procreation. And while I'm doing so, I'd also like to point that straight couples disinterested in procreation would also be banned from marriage in your construct, right? Because obviously, it doesn't matter if they'd provide a stable home for the child they're never going to have. Right? Finally Seeker, I find it disgusting that a parent would want to marry her child, although for the stated reasons (benefits – does her daughter have cancer and need insurance) I suppose I can understand why this particular woman might want to do so. Still, I don't view this as a slipperly slope situation, as you CLEARLY do. I simply think that gay relationships are as loving and valid as straight ones. They deserve the same legal protections. I'm not going to let you change the debate from the issue of gay relationships being valid by having you tell me that my job is now to decide why polygamy doesn't fly. We're not debating polygamy. We're debating gay marriage.

Sam,1. I am not making a slippery slope argument directly. I am asking why it is not an all or nothing – I am asking, how can you have the gall to be "disgusted" by a mother wanting a civil union with her daughter? Isn't that like me being disgusted with gay marriage? Why do you put your own value judgements on love? I am asking you, what logic makes you differentiate, both morally and legally, between gay marriage and any of these other types of unions. You have yet to provide such logic.2. The *ability* to procreate, under natural, healthy circumstances (sterility aside) is what keeps human life going, and is therefore one good reason to view male/female marriage as the norm Your attacks on this are red herrings. No one is requiring procreation, just trying to establish the norm based on biological, developmental, and sociological evidence.3. No one is saying that by allowing gay marriage we are automatically legalizing all other types of unions. What we *are* saying, and what the original article is saying, is that the logic used to support gay marriage applies directly to other types of loving unions, and therefore, these should be recognized UNLESS YOU CAN GIVE ME SOME REASON WHY THEY SHOULD NOT. Can you? You already said you thought that mother/daughter unions were "disgusting." (I can't believe you are such a hater! (sarcasm)) Is it because you require romantic involvement for marriage? Is it because your definition of marriage is romantic love? I already know that you disagree with the logic behind wanting to keep marriage between a man and woman. Why go round that tree again. The real questions is, as a supporter of gay marriage, HOW DO YOU EXCLUDE OTHERS if your logic also easily applies to their alternate unions (polygamy, polyamory, non-incestuous familial unions, etc)? If you can not come up with a good reason, I will conclude that your logic requires you to accept all of these, or else revert back to male/female only.

Well that's the way to be subtle Seeker. Unless I can MEET your needs, then I must support incestuous marriage. Of course, I don't. And as I have explained on numerous occaisons, I support relationships based on love between two consenting adults. I don't support polygamy – since there is OFTEN a victim – or incest – victim – or beastiality – victim – or any of the other things that you'd like to allege that I support. I don't believe that allowing gay couples to marry creates a slippery slope. I believe it allows loving couples to receive the legal protections that so definitely deserve. This isn't going anywhere. You're clearly never going to support gay marriage (and you'll clearly print anything to "prove" your point, even if that means accusing me of supporting incest – as if subtlety is an impossibility from my side of the argument) and I've never going to budge on our country being less than what it's capable of if we treat our gay citizens as lesser. That, by the way, is why my morality is superior. I believe in allowing for gay couples to marry – I've never said anything about restricting your right to hate gay marriage. Your position prevents gays from having anything. You suggest repression Seeker; I don't.

OK, so your whole reason for excluding these other unions is based on the fact that there are victims. Now I understand. But I think that's a weak argument. Where is the victim in two adult sisters wanting the legal benefits of marriage? Or a mother and her adult daughter? They love each other. They are consenting adults. Maybe their love does not include sex, but so what? Who's the victim in polygamy? Or polyamory? I don't think your victim theology really holds. Consenting adults get hurt in monogamous marriage, and divorce has a victim too – children. So by your definition of victim, maybe we should outlaw all marriage! Or at least, divorce. Since you haven't really proven that there are victims in these other situations, I would say that your view would only cover marriage to minors. All the other forms of union i mentioned would be fine -calling consenting adults "victims" is like saying that one or both of the gay lovers are victims – it has no factual or practical basis. They are consenting adults. Who are you to say that their love is "twisted"? ;) And your concern for animals is interesting – I suppose you are a vegetarian? Otherwise, your claim that bestiality is a crime with a victim doesn't really ring true. I mean, you are OK with killing animals, but not copulation? As I've said, animals are often more than willing to copulate with humnans, so isn't that consent? Why not? I don't hate gays as you claim, any more than you hate christians (or do you?). I am not preventing gays from getting married in their gay-friendly church. I am merely preventing them from being recognized by civil law. I am preventing them from imposing their immorality on society. It is no different from disallowing polygamy. Gays have the freedom to associate, even live together, have a job, own a house, be on TV, or write a will or power of attorney to benefit their partners. The only thing they really lack are a few tax benefits, and official social recognition. By pushing for the latter, they are overstepping their rights by trying to make their immorality the law of the land. Shame on them. However, if they want medical benefits, maybe there should be a way to get that done. But let's allow civil unions to include all family members or love relations. I can't believe you have the gall to assert that your opinion is superior, while condeming me for doing the same. But at least now you are admitting that you actually do function like me – you live a certain way because you *believe* (based on your theological, philosphic, and ethical assumptions and your experience) that your way is the best. And you are willing to call others *wrong*, even *immoral* for holding certain positions. Of course, your accusation of hate is still a misnomer, but again, it is convenient to paint your opponents as hateful, since it takes the focus off of their arguments.

Seeker, The difference in our moral positions (besides my rightness), is that I do not seek to create a society in which gays are oppressed based on my personal religion. I would like to believe that almost everybody should have the right to make their own decisions. You don't. You think gays are being "selfish" for wanting to be treated equally. I think that says all that needs to be said about your position on this. You believe in inequality, unfairness and an America that oppresses its people. I don't. Hence the superiority of my position.

I don’t believe that allowing gay couples to marry creates a slippery slope. Even a gay legal scholar notes that pretenses of conservatism are false and the patterns that generate homosexuality can be normalized by the same process that has been understaken to attempt to normalize homosexuality:

…most of us (and almost all of us in the legal academy) have hedged our bets, coming out as vanilla-flavored homosexuals, virtually normal! (Apologies to Andrew Sullivan, Virtually Normal (1995)) We have not come out as transsexuals, leather dykes, masochists, drag queens, or pedophiles – all orientations shocking to middle class and even radical feminist society and even more totalizing in the creation of a singular identity. One would expect that if openly gay scholarship comes to be accepted in the legal academy….little waves of new outsiders will form. Every assimilation generates new lines being drawn and new outsiders being created.

Sam, OK, well, you made your point that you don't like my position. You find it exclusionary. But if you exclude other loving unions, what makes your position superior? You just draw the line at what *you* find morally objectionable. How is that any different from what you accuse me of? If you are so inclusionary, at least admit that you are open to or for recognizing other unions in which consenting adults would like official government recognition of their love (polygamy, polyamory, and civil unions between other family members, or even really good friends). I think this whole discussion, including the original article, really proves the point that the logic behind gay marriage quite probably leads to a slippery slope (and in general, I hate slippery slope arguments, but here, I think it may acgtually apply) because there is nothing very different at all about other types of unions. If no significant distinction can be made, and the argument fits these other scenarios, I'd say slippery slope applies. And those who promote gay marriage must follow their own logic to it's reasonable conclusion – that discrminating against many of these other unions is the same "hypocrisy" they accuse conservatives of. And as I said, my reasoning is that biological, childhood development, and sociological evidence point to the loving male/female parental unit as the THE foundational building block for healthy children and societies. Sure, loving single parents, grandparents, or gays can raise a child. But let's not push those scenarios legislatively as ones to shoot for – each of those is sub-optimal for different reasons.

Part of the problem with this discussion is the loose use of the word love. The assumption is that sexual love- eros- is all that should be required for a "marriage" or "civil union" (we'll get to that in a minute). Eros is the most flighty emotional form of love, compared to agape- unconditional love that is pledged in traditional Christian, Jewish marriages, and philia (sp) which is brotherly/ sisterly love. Philosophers have always agreed that agape is the strongest, most committed form of love and eros the least. We should not recommend anyone, straight, gay or whatever, get married for eros, or even philia or storge( natural affection), but only "till death do us part" agape love. So when you are arguing about gays "loving" each other, and two sisters loving each other, I am pretty sure you are talking about different types of love. Inprecise use of language kills a discussion. Secondly, civil unions and marriage are two different things and you can have one without the other. The question for cuvil unions is a legal one only. Can two or more people contract in such a way that others must grant societal benefits to them based on their contract? The article is valid in stating that the door is open to all kinds of "civil unions". Who are we to tell Mormons- one wife only please. Or to tell the single Dad that he cannot contract a civil union with his grown children so they can share in legal/ financial benefits? Why can't a fraternity or sorority all join together on one car insurance policy through "civil union" to save money? Who is to say they are less committed to each other than the average gay or stright couple? As for marriage, it is an issue of societal structures, acknowledging a Judeo Christian heritage as a basis for our legal and moral structures and deciding for all marriages, what should the basis be.

But if you exclude other loving unions, what makes your position superior? You just draw the line at what *you* find morally objectionable. This is dead-on. The catch is to find reasons to exclude other forms of union that aren't naked moral judgments. In other words, we need non-moral reasons (or mixed moral/non-moral*) to ground the exclusion of polygamy, etal. And I think I did that above. * What's key is that the reason isn't merely "X is bad." I take it that an acceptable reason is in the form "X is bad for moral reason Y", where Y is a widely agreed upon moral reason. Gay marriage opponents do just this (for instance, gay marriage is bad as it will dissolve straight marriage – we all agree straight marriage is good, hence the validity of the reasoning. It's incredibly far-fetched, but valid per the strictures of public reasoning outlined above)

Actually, Corey makes a good point. Maybe the exclusionary principle that Sam is searching for is not victimhood, but the type of love unique to romantic partnership. Interestingly, agape love can sit atop any of the other types of love. So you could have philia + agape. Perhaps Sam's defnition might be eros + agape = marriageable. By that measure, you could include gay marriage but exclude civil unions between siblings. However, that reasoning would still include polygamy and polyamory. JPE – Regarding a common ethic by which to discriminate, I think that if something harms individuals or society, we may need to legislate against it, or at least not legislate FOR it. As I have argued, I think that childhood development and sociologic studies support (albeit inconclusively) the contention that the traditional mother/father combo is what is best for emotional development in children, supports a stable society, and of course, is biologically required for having children (technology aside). As the established norm, I think that allowing other "family structures" to be elevated to the same level weakens society rather than strengthens it. But because this whole arena is still somewhat unproven, and may always be, we should do two things. First, we should approach it with caution, and not be reckless in our legislation, as other countries, probably to their own hurt, have done. Second, I think we should refer to the scriptures as a guide, because our country has done so since its inception, and secondly, because the xian world view (the biblical, protestant view) has created the most free, virtuous, and prosperous countries in history, thereby proving it's worthiness.

Seeker, Mynym, Corey, The difference between my position and your position is that none of you actually believe in what you're advocating. You're arguing that if we allow gay marriage, then we must allow these other things – incestuous marriage, fraternity marriage, beastiality marriage, whatever. But you don't actually believe in any of that. You believe that marriage is a right reserved solely for a man and a woman – Britney Spears and that guy she was married to for 50 hours, just for an example. Whereas I deeply believe that we live in an unjust nation if we treat the love of TWO people – regardless of gender – differently under the law, simply because a majority of the country happens to be Christian. I don't believe that we should live in a country where the morality of some is legislated onto the rest. You clearly, clearly, clearly don't agree with me. Because you believe that you're going to heaven, and because you believe it is your job to make as many Christians as possible, you believe that your morality SHOULD be forced onto everybody else, regardless of how very unfair that assumption is. Here's the thing though – in my construct of our nation, you are all free to disavow and disapprove of gay marriage. You can hate it all you like. You can have marches and rallies and protests and everything else that makes you happy…just as long as you aren't allowed to legally repress another person consensual decision with their partner. In other words, under my construct, nobody's being oppressed. That doesn't work so well with yours. In yours, you maintain that as long as gays are willing to accept their second tier status in this great nation of ours, everything will be fine. Except for the gays obviously, whom you clearly only care about when they're willing to turn their back on their biological homosexuality in an attempt to appease you (at the expense of their own mental stability). Why we can't share this country, I'll never know. Why you aren't willing to give any ground, I'll never know. But I believe in a country that's better than the one that you'd like to establish. Finally, and this is worth noting, I'm not going to take seriously these mother-daughter, fraternity, or whatever other civil union ideas that you're proposing. You don't believe in them, I don't believe in them, nobody is seriously proposing them, and they simply are not the same as the love shared between two people.

We are not proposing these outlandish things to be facetious – we are pointing out that the logic you use to justify gay marriage logically includes these other unions, and you have not given a viable reason why you want to exclude the others. I am also accusing those who use that logic of hypocrisy because, while accusing conservatives of hate, moral superiority, and discrimination, they are practicing the exact same exlusionary logic towards these other loving unions, and fail to justify it. I am not saying I agree with this logic. The whole point is that the pro-gay-marriage logic is faulty, and should not be allowed to win the day in public policy. Lastly, we are not trying to force Christianity on anyone. We are, however, trying to legislate morality based on natural and ethical logical standards that coincide with Christian principles. The difference between this and a theocracy, as Ihave said, is that a) not all christian principles are worthy of legislation – no one is forcing you to tithe to the xian church b) only those biblical principles that can be argued from a common ethic (do no harm) should be considered for legislation – so purely religious principles should not be legislated c) just because I use my faith to guide my ethics and morals, while others may use their atheistic or other faith assumptions for theirs, doesn't make my (or their) moral conclusions wrong – what makes them wrong or right is whether or not they can be logically supported by our common ethic rather than our faith assumptions. Proponents of hetero-only marriage may be informed and motivated by scripture, but I think that their logic for public policy, based on the sciences of biology, psychology, and sociology, is more sound than the pro-gay marriage logic which we have examined here, and found wanting.

Seeker, The logic that you propose to restrict gay marriage contains precisely the same sort of problems that my logic allegedly contains. 1. You have occaisonally written about procreation – yet you don't suggest that we restrict marriage to couples having children. 2. You have occaisonally written about strengthening marriage – yet you have proposed no Constitutional Amendment banning adultery. In other words, your logic is just as faulty as mine is – except that my logic doesn't actually support any of the things that you are talking about. What I am holding is that marriage between two consenting adults is what makes sense. You are saying that it must then make sense to allow for incest, polygamy, whatever. I'm arguing for a system in which two-person couplings are allowed, legally. The majority of your proposals consist of more than two person couplings, or the inclusion of families, or of animals, or whatever else. How you can look at two happily committed gay people and see less than yourself is absolutely shocking. How can you think that your relationship is better?

My main point is not that that your logic includes incest, but it doesn't explicitly exclude it. My main point is that it includes other types of loving unions between consenting adults. What is the moral difference between your consenting adults and those in polygamy? I do not approve of adultery, neither do I approve of homosexuality. Neither do I seek to criminalize them, although adultery does have legal implications in divorce which are more sever than homosexuality – so our current laws are sufficient, and my lack of desire to criminalize adultery shows my restraint, not a lack of concern for adultery. In fact, my approach is evenhanded, not unbalanced as you are attempting to assert. The open-endedness of your logic is vast, while the weaknesses of the hetero only arguments are much less significant because you are citing exceptions (what if a couple can't have children?), while there is as of yet NO reasoning that allows you to exclude other unions. I have reasoning and some logic which you may find fault with, but you have NO logic by which you are excluding others. I have a dyke (pun intneded) with a few holes, while you have an openly flowing river without any dam – that is, not the whit of explanation as to why you exclude others. When are you going to tell me why you oppose polygamy, polyamory, and platonic sibling relationships from civil union?

Seeker, Your logic doesn't EXCLUDE incest either, since you obviously believe that only a woman should marry a man. A father could marry his daughter. Or, god forbid, a lesbian could marry a gay man. Your logic creates nothing other than the most rudimentary understanding of our couplings. In other words, you see man and woman, you assume that its fine. Stop suggesting that my construction allows for these evils while yours doesn't.

And about my reasons for opposing polygamy, polyamory, and platonic sibling relationships (the Seeker Big P Three). I oppose all three because there is more often than not the presence of a victim, particularly platonic sibling relationships. What more do you need to know? I will credit you for changing this debate entirely though. You're refusing to explain how your relationship with your wife is superior to any gay relationship, and you're lucky. You dodge those. I'm dumb enough to keep stooping down and explaining to you things you already know about victimhood. Still, the day goes to me. I believe in something – you believe in restricting it. You believe that everybody you know who is gay is less than yourself. I don't approach the world in that way. I don't hate, in other words. You do.

Ok, well you gave your reasoning for calling the other types of unions morally wrong, so I am glad that you are willing to use such discrimination, even if I think your victim logic is weak. As to incest, you never asked about my logic for excluding it, but even the logic I provided against hx unions applies – it's against biology (an almost certain increase in birth defects), developmental psychology (I think that we could prove that it is harmful emotionally), and societally, I think it damages the family unit. But again, while your victim logic covers child molestation, it does not seem to cover adult consentual incest, nor two people with brotherly/sisterly love – you seem to keep avoiding giving your reasoning for excluding this from civil unions. My relationship with my wife is superior to a gay one in a few ways – we contribute children, we contribute children who have emotional health by giving them both genders to bond with during their formative years, we are not engaged in unnatural sexual acts that lead to greater mortality and burden on society, and we ensure that we are not diluting our society with an ever widening and sinful view of sexuality that accepts promiscuity, homosexuality, adultery, and other sexual sins as OK. I am not superior, however, to a gay person. Rather, I am following the Truth which leads to life. And I have not changed the subject – the subject actually is that the primary arguments behind gay rights are based on faulty assumptions, and one way to prove that is to take them to their logical ends. However, not wanting to be reductionist and misrepresent these views, I asked for any clarifications by which the pro-gay marriage logic could exclude others. Having received only your weak "victim" theory, I am further convinced that the gay logic is faulty. Your pot-shots at my pro-hetero logic were often reductionist (looking only at procreation, for example), and you did not seem to want to consider any additional reasoning beyond that. Lastly, I think that the pro-gay marriage logic that excludes other types of loving unions while calling the pro-hetero logic "hateful" or "narrow" is hypocritical because it practices the same "draw the circle around us, everyone else is immoral" logic that you accuse conservatives of. I don't think that this is a correct characterization of such logic, but this liberal characterization of hetero-only logic fits the pro-gay logic as well, so you might as well be accusing yourself also. I personally think that the hetero logic is reasonable, not merely "drawing the moral line around ourselves." And again, the fact that I am not denying any real rights, but merely some privaledges and social approval which should be reserved for marriage, and am not criminalizing homosexuality, is a moderate, reasonable, and kind limit to set.

And again, the fact that I am not denying any real rights, but merely some privaledges and social approval which should be reserved for marriage, and am not criminalizing homosexuality, is a moderate, reasonable, and kind limit to set. How generous of you Seeker. How generous of you to not criminalize homosexuality. Whew. When you write something like that, you sound like a crazed theocrat. You are neither moderate – you hate gays – reasonable – you hate gays – nor kind – seriously, you hate gays – when you propose these things. You are attempting to put yourself in the light of generosity when in fact you are legally reducing homosexuality to a second tier placement in our society, despite the fact that gays are obviously born gay. But then again, you don't believe that gays are born gay. You believe that they're intentionally trying to ruin your society. Your selfishness knows no bounds. (Of course, if I wrote any of the same things about Christians that you do about gays, you'd be beside yourself with discrimination this and oppression that. It's only different because you're doing it to gays.) Finally, you can believe all that you want that you and your wife are doing good for our country raising your kids. I'm sure you are (although we already have enough bigots running around). But what about the gay parents who take in foster children, or the children of women who chose not to abort? Those parents clearly are lesser in your eyes, even though they're taking in the more difficult cases. And still, you believe in your own offensive superiority.

I'm not trying to make myself look generous, just trying to re-orient your thinking – you view my POV as extreme, but I am telling you that I am not extreme like an Islamic or secular fundamentalist might be – in my mind, I am taking a reasonable middle road. You keep mistaking moral disagreement and disapproval of certain stances and practices as looking down on other *people* (please re-read What is hate?. You can make assumptions about other people's motives all day long, but the fact is, you just seem confused by your own anger, which is evident in your tone and consistent logical fallacies, which are mostly ad- hominem attacks rather than logical arguments. Your use of words like hate, bigot, superiority, could all be used against you using your own logic – you feel superior to polygamists and polyamorists, are bigoted against them, and you obviously feel that your viewpoint is superior, having said so. You have no idea what my opinions are on gay adoption – this whole discussion is merely about one thing – the weakness of the pro-gay marriage logic, and the hypocrisy of calling hetero-marriage proponents bigots, when you do the very same thing by discriminating against others. But I am not saying that you are guilty of unjust discrimination – there is such a thing as reasonable and just discrimination. For instance, not allowing minors or siblings to marry may be a just discrimination. Not allowing gays to marry may also be just. But the fact that you call it unjust, while doing the same thing to others, is just another case of liberal illogic which then forces them to take such a hypocritical stance.

Seeker, Just out of curiosity, why don't you embrace polygamy? I know why I don't – the often explained victim theory – but your Bible is chock full of polygamy. And not the polygamy of sinners, but of those favored by God. If you were being honest, shouldn't you not only approve of polygamy, but also engage in it? Or do you not like your Bible? And why is it that you insist on followng Biblical laws when they suit your tastes, but you ignore Biblical rules when they don't? Doesn't that make you the hypocrite? Because, at the very least, I'm steady on my position. And as for your claim that secular fundamentalists share something in common with Islamists – that's just wrong, and offensive, as you well know. Islamists endorse the killing of innocents. I most certainly do not. Finally, I am not inconsistent in my positions, or my anger. I believe in an inclusive America. You believe in a Christianized America which is designed solely to reflect your own needs and values. I'd never restrict your rights Seeker. You'd happily restrict mine, or those of my gay friends, given half the chance.